Legal briefs pile up with drama in Holiday World ownership case

Posted Monday, June 24, 2013 10:29 AM | Contributed by The Shark

Legal briefs piling up in state appeals court suggest that the Koch family’s feud over ownership of the popular Southern Indiana amusement park is far from over nearly three years after it began. The new filings raise accusations that one Koch family member silently bankrolled a plan by her brother and that he raised his salary fourfold, to more than $1 million, while he was in charge of Holiday World.

Read more from The Indy Star.

Related parks

Monday, June 24, 2013 11:14 AM

I feel bad for Pat in this situation. To see the family legacy going through this can't be easy. This was the first time that I can recall her not being at the park during Holiwood Nights. Was she out of town or has she not been at the park all year?

Monday, June 24, 2013 11:18 AM

Here we go again, I'm hoping Dan doesn't post on this thread....

Monday, June 24, 2013 1:12 PM

^^ In the HWN Facebook group, Paula had said "[Pat] told us she prefers to work behind the scenes this year - but not to worry, that her health is good." I seem to recall one of these articles about the court drama mentioned that Pat was taking a backseat role this year and also no longer appeared in commercials. It was certainly different not being greeted out front and not seeing her at the HWN dinner.

Last edited by birdhombre, Monday, June 24, 2013 1:12 PM
Monday, June 24, 2013 1:24 PM

Wow. What a mess.

But, that being said, if Natalie has given Dan money as a gift, a loan, or as a portion to give her stake in his buyout plan, she should NOT be considered an impartial witness.

Monday, June 24, 2013 3:19 PM

(giggle) you said briefs :-)

Monday, June 24, 2013 3:37 PM

As opposed to legal boxers? ;~)

Monday, June 24, 2013 3:49 PM

I don't see how anything has changed. The court agreed that Dan's buyout price wasn't fair, negating the agreement. Sounds like that should be the end of it to me. Granting yourself a Dick Kinzel salary certainly isn't going to win you character points.

Monday, June 24, 2013 5:03 PM

I certainly don't agree with many things that have happened on Dan's side. But that being said, I don't get why the court nullified the agreement as opposed to telling him how much he had to pay. If Dan then chose to not pay the court ordered amount, I can more easily understand a nullified agreement.

Monday, June 24, 2013 5:19 PM

Jason - I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the agreement was that the purchase had to be made by Dec. 10, 2010 (180 days after Will's death) otherwise the purchase agreement was null and void. ( )

Since the judge ruled that Dan's price was invalid, why should he get another chance?

Monday, June 24, 2013 5:23 PM

That makes sense. I wasn't aware of the deadline. That being said, couldn't a deadline like that be postponed pending legal decisions? Otherwise, all Lori's lawyer would have to do is make sure the case was dragged out beyond that deadline. When was the original case filed?

Monday, June 24, 2013 5:32 PM

From the Spencer County Journal article I linked to (dated Jan 9, 2013)...

"Lori Koch filed her civil suit in January 2011, claiming Koch Development Corp. and Dan Koch failed to abide by a purchase agreement in which the company was obliged to purchase Will Koch’s shares in the company after his death."

Monday, June 24, 2013 5:35 PM

I guess he probably doesn't have much to stand on at this point. That being said, he doesn't have much to lose by trying.

Monday, June 24, 2013 9:00 PM

I would imagine there is a lot to lose by trying, depending on what one values. This is an awful lot of family business running through the press for something that sounds like it should be a done deal.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:43 PM

And an awful lot of crazy running around the Internet. Dan was sitting on Facebook all weekend during HWN.


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC